Police reform white paper ‘Building Communities, Beating Crime’

Report: 11
Date: 27 January 2005
By: Clerk

Summary

This report sets out a draft response to the police reform White Paper ‘Building Communities, Beating Crime’ and a draft submission on further consultation on reforms to existing partnership working arrangements.

A. Recommendation

That members discuss and agree

1. the response to the White Paper; and
2. endorse the submission on the consultation over reform to partnership working arrangements (which was cleared by the Chair of the MPA and been sent as a draft to the Home Office to meet the timetable for consultation.)

B. Supporting information

1. Members are reminded that there was a full report on the White Paper to the Authority meeting on 25 November 2004.

2. The first phase of police reform started in 2001 focussing primarily on specific structural changes such as the introduction of PCSOs to increase reassurance, the creation of the Independent Police Complaints Commission to promote public confidence, the DNA expansion programme and the creation of the Police Standards Unit to monitor performance at BCU level.

3. The current round of police reform has its roots in a public perception of rising crime despite record reductions, calls for greater accountability, the need for more customer satisfaction, concern over anti social behaviour and alcohol fuelled violence, and the need to embed the performance culture yet further. The Government’s White Paper ‘Building Communities, Beating Crime’ sets out three primary aims

• Spreading neighbourhood policing to every community and embedding a genuinely responsive customer service culture
• Workforce modernisation to ensure the service is fully equipped to deliver these changes
• Greater involvement of the community and citizens in determining how their communities are policed.

4. The White Paper envisages the following four, interlinked, strands.

1. Roles and responsibilities
   The role of the Government will be to
   • set the national direction, strategic framework, priorities and targets
   • provide resources and powers to tackle crime/anti-social behaviour
   • protect the public by intervening where there is demonstrable failure
   • ensure coherence/consistency in policing practices/systems in national interest
   • build confidence and empower people to keep their own communities safe
2. Role of the Police Service
   The police service role
   • should continue to be broad based, both to maintain legitimacy and increase trust and confidence with the public
   • includes preventing/detecting crime and public reassurance
   • must move towards more proactive, problem-solving, intelligence-led policing.
3. Partnerships
   Crime and anti-social behaviour are not issues for the police alone. Effective partnerships are vital both
   • locally with other criminal justice agencies, local government, health, children’s services, business, voluntary sector; and
   • nationally with the Serious Organised Crime Agency and Security Services
   • However, it is not simply a matter for criminal justice agencies. It is also about individuals and communities recognising their responsibilities and a shared undertaking with the police.
4. Future Direction of Policing
   The development of a policing style characterised by
   • Revitalised Neighbourhood Policing
   • Responsiveness, customer service and community engagement.
   • A new, modernised police workforce equipped to deliver on the challenges
   • Effective links in policing from a local to a national level
   • A clearer, stronger tripartite partnership.

Police authorities and Partnership Reform

5. In addition the white paper makes specific proposals relating to police authorities and seeks further consultation on twelve particular aspects of potential reform to CDRPs whilst emphasising the importance of local partnership working in combating crime, anti-social behaviour and substance misuse. The aim is to ensure that CDRPs are the most effective vehicle for local community safety by reviewing the partnership provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 but they are proceeding on the assumptions that

• Police authorities will take account of local priorities when developing the policing plan
• Police authorities will secure implementation of the community engagement strategy
• Police and local authorities have a joint duty and will put in place arrangements to deliver a range of engagement opportunities and respond to concerns
• The statutory minimum requirement for information to households will be met
• CDRPs will oversee the delivery of neighbourhood level priorities agreed with communities

6. Taken together, the submissions will have a clear impact on the future role of police authorities but it is generally accepted that different approaches for different parts of England and Wales may be appropriate.

7. An important question for London is whether given the existence of two regional authorities – the Mayor/ GLA, and the MPA - the Government should reconsider the role of the Government Office for London in relation to crime and community safety, so that responsibility for developing a cohesive London strategy, for target setting, for funding and oversight of performance of CDRPs is more effectively shared by the GLA and MPA as regional bodies, with an attenuated role for GOL.

8. Appendix 1 outlines a draft reply to Home Office proposals in the White Paper. Appendix 2 sets out a proposed response to consultation on the revision of partnership working arrangements.

C. Equality and diversity implications

The White Paper proposes that police authorities should have a duty to promote diversity within police authorities and the police service. Our response welcomes and supports that proposal (which is already the case in London). Where the White Paper considers improving the arrangements for community engagement we support that initiative in the knowledge that the CDRP and Community Engagement teams are already working with partners to improve the participation of diverse groups at a local level and in pan London level consultative arrangements. We also believe that a new approach to career development and multiple points of entry for the police service will not only help develop and better equip the workforce but will promote and encourage greater diversity.

D. Financial implications

There are no direct costs arising from this report.

E. Background papers

• Home Office White Paper ‘Building Communities, Beating Crime’

F. Contact details

Report author: David Riddle/Keith Dickinson

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1: MPA response to the White Paper ‘Building Communities, Beating Crime’

In summary we support the general direction of the proposals in the White Paper, but we consider that

• The powers of PCSOs should not be extended
• The role of police authorities in the appointment of ACPO officers and their police staff equivalents should not be limited to consultation on the short listing of candidates
• The composition of police authorities should not be altered by the removal of magistrate members as such.
• The appointment of the Chair of an authority should not be subject to any externally based competency approval but should remain the democratic choice of authority members as a whole.

We urge the Government to give further consideration, in the preparation of legislation for the White Paper proposals, to the composition of the MPA, the relationship of the Mayor to the MPA, and to the allocation of functions between GLA, MPA and GOL in order to recognise the significance of the existence of the GLA and MPA as regional authorities.

1. The Metropolitan Police Authority played a full part in the concept and introduction of the changes consequent upon the first round of police reform. We endorse fully the general thrust and direction of the changes contemplated in the White Paper ‘Building Communities, Beating Crime’ but wish to add comment and emphasis in respect of several of the proposals.

Neighbourhood Policing and Responsiveness

2. Since its inception, the Authority has been focussed on the need to improve relationships between the police and local people and to restore and strengthen community confidence in policing. We support fully any initiatives that help the move from ‘policing with consent’ to the active co-operation and involvement of local communities in tackling crime and disorder. We have supported such an approach by developing the Safer Neighbourhood model in London, creating new ways of delivering police services to communities and of engaging with our communities. The MPA has also led the way in the concept and deployment of police community support officers. The success of these teams is recognised at all levels, from the people who live in the wards to those who govern the city. Nonetheless, we accept that anecdotal evidence alone is insufficient and welcome the continuing development of Citizen Focus as a measure of police responsiveness.

Workforce modernisation

3. The Metropolitan Police Authority already has a duty to promote diversity by virtue of s.404 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. The Authority takes its responsibilities under this duty very seriously and welcomes the extension of a statutory provision to provincial police authorities. The proposals to measure improvement in the recruitment, retention and progression of minority ethnic, female and other under-represented staff are also welcome.

4. A new approach to career development and multiple points of entry for the police service will not only help develop and better equip the workforce but will promote and encourage greater diversity, equality and resonance with the public they serve. We recognise that the stated intention to equip police officers with the necessary leadership skills at all levels is a key element of workforce modernisation but given the existing levels of investment in training, it should be subject to rigorous, high level evaluation to measure its impact on the desired outcomes.

5. Notwithstanding any complementary training for police community support officers, we do not support any further extension to their powers, other than possibly, the right to search a detainee if there is a suspicion that he or she is carrying an offensive weapon.

6. The importance of the role that police authorities play in the appointment of ACPO rank staff is properly recognised and the proposal to extend this to include equivalent police staff is appropriate. However, this forward step is entirely negated by the proposal to limit the role of the Authority to consultee in the short-listing process for ACPO ranks. This proposal denies local democracy a voice in the shaping of an organisation to deliver a nature and style of local policing and we strongly oppose this limitation on the role of a police authority.

7. In a similar vein, the appointment of an individual as the commander of a particular borough is a key factor affecting performance and community confidence so it is an appointment on which police authorities should be consulted; we therefore propose that provision be made for police authorities to be consulted about the proposed mandatory qualification for BCU commanders and to be involved in the appointment of such officers.

Greater Involvement of Citizens and Communities

8. The proposal for more responsive, citizen-focused policing services accords with the Authority’s own policies and supports it aim of change leading to continual improvement. We welcome the proposal to give police authorities a responsibility to provide information to communities, about local policing.

9. Recognition by the Government of the role local councillors can play as advocates in relation to the concerns of local people about policing or community safety helps locate the wider responsibility for tackling crime and disorder in the heart of the community itself but we seek the opportunity to work with the police service and the advocates to agree protocols on how and the circumstances under which the community ‘trigger mechanism’ will operate.

10. The MPA supports the proposals that answerabilities and scrutiny arrangements should be exercised collaboratively at neighbourhood, CDRP and police authority level. It is also proper that police authorities have responsibility for ensuring that robust mechanisms are in place with minimum bureaucracy.

Ensuring Effectiveness and Police Authorities

11. We concur with the view that the National Policing Plan should be more strategic and concise, and support the need for police authorities to reflect the five strategic outcomes more fully in their policing plans. As indicated above we promote constantly a performance culture within the MPS and will actively support the concept of minimum standards of information that all households should expect to receive, with an emphasis on the provision of local police performance. As part of this performance culture, we are pleased at the prospect of a clearer role for the Authority in holding the MPS to account and see the appraisal of chief officers as a vital element.

12. Proposed changes to the councillor membership of police authorities will not necessarily strengthen them; indeed if the ability to select members on the basis of particular knowledge, skills or abilities is reduced, it may well weaken police authorities. The loss of magistrate members as a discrete entity will neither make it easier for people to understand the composition of police authorities nor raise their visibility. The linkages between policing and the wider criminal justice system make it essential that there is proper recognition of the valuable contribution that magistrate members make.

13. We similarly believe that any restriction, which limits the right and freedom of a police authority to appoint the Chair, is inherently undemocratic and unsound.

14. In reviewing governance arrangements, we suggest that Government should give further consideration to the position of the Mayor of London vis a vis the police authority. Moreover, given the existence of two regional authorities – the Mayor/GLA, and the MPA – we suggest that the Government should reconsider the role of the Government Office for London in relation to crime and community safety, with a view to giving lead responsibility for developing a cohesive London strategy, for target setting, for funding and oversight of performance of CDRPs to the regional bodies, with an attenuated role for GOL.

Appendix 2: MPA submission on proposals to reform the Crime and Disorder Act 1998

Are CDRPs the best vehicle for determining strategic priorities for community safety and delivering on them?

1. Crime and disorder problems are rooted in the community and are unique to that community. Workable, effective solutions must be found and delivered locally; a top down approach imposed at a local level is less likely to succeed than that which has local ownership and commitment. Thus a greater emphasis on localised priority setting is to be welcomed, especially as community engagement otherwise becomes superficial and ultimately pointless. The logical progression is for strategic priorities to be informed through the issues identified at a local level. To make this process effective, CDRPs must coalesce the priorities from all sources into a local community safety plan and agree any bespoke targets but it should not be skewed by an emphasis on any one set of priorities.

2. The MPA has a statutory interest in both the local and national priorities. For that reason our role, as a CDRP partner, should be that of an impartial facilitator, prioritising and synthesising the issues identified locally and nationally. In this role we would translate agency targets into wider partnership targets and build consensus on the priorities taking into account the needs of Government departments, individual partners in CDRPs and the needs of the community. This would complement the duty of the Authority to ensure effective community engagement.

How should CDRPs be held to account and by whom?

4. This question can only be addressed on the premise that any CDRP will only be successful when there is

• a proper fit between the BCU plan and the community policing plan, and
• balance in the commitment of the partnership to national and local priorities.

Division in either aspect will harm overall performance. Bearing this in mind it is important to distinguish between ‘accountability’ and ‘answerability’. BCU commanders and CDRPs are quite rightly answerable to their communities on local performance but the BCU is accountable only to the chief officer, who in turn is accountable to the police authority. That balance should not be disturbed.

4. Presently CDRPs are overseen by the local Government Offices in terms of performance on national targets and, in some cases, locally by the LSP and through the representation of the local authority, to the community in that borough. Some CDRPs also have a process where progress can be reported and they can be held to account by the community. Islington, for instance, has regular roadshows around the borough and the community are invited to comment on crime and disorder issues.

5. However, neither Government Offices nor LSPs are a part of the crime reduction partnership and they are not in a position to manage the performance of CDRPs effectively or to hold them to account. Financial penalties and bad press are the only sanctions against ‘failing’ partnerships; these have negative connotations and are seldom used. Extra resources go towards partnerships on a need basis, not necessarily on the basis of effectiveness. This does not amount to effective performance management and the problem is exacerbated by the duality and potential divisiveness of the national/local approach.

6. There would be an unacceptable conflict of interest and lack of transparency if local authorities, with responsibility for executive action, resources, delivery and a vested interest in CDRP performance, were to hold themselves and other CDRP partners to account.

7. We see greater merit in a system that ensures common standards are defined, agreed and delivered across London so that the performance of all CDRPs is raised to the highest possible level. The singular regional government arrangements already in place in London, with the Mayor and GLA, and a strategic regional police authority in the MPA, create the potential for those regional authorities to share responsibility for

1. Promoting cohesive London wide arrangements, priorities and programmes;
2. Funding partnership activity (replacing the present funding role of GOL) so as to ensure that all resources available for partnership activity are administered effectively and in co-ordination.
3. Holding partnerships to account for performance.

Should CDRPs be subject to inspection?

8. The only form of inspection at present is the self-assessment process. This is hurried and lacks transparency. As a result it is difficult to evidence what a successful CDRP looks like and what it is doing. Self-assessment should continue but layers of answerability should be built into the system

1. individual MPA members as a critical friend in their local partnership (an extension of their existing role).
2. the LSP
3. the GLA/ MPA for performance management
4. Statutory audit and inspection. We think joint inspections by the Audit Commission and HMIC coinciding with either BCU inspection or the local authority CPA would be one approach.

This approach links with accountability and would provide evidence of how CDRPs are performing, which could encourage under performing CDRPs to allocate further resources, review their systems and structures to maximise the benefits.

How best should CDRPs engage and involve local people?

9. CDRP efforts around community engagement are often piecemeal, focussed solely on the audit and strategy consultation and currently fail to reach specific sections of the community. Consultation is still very much an agency initiative specific activity rather than a cohesive exercise. Police authorities have a duty to ensure effective community engagement arrangements and we support the view that this should happen within the context of the CDRP. The MPA is planning to reposition Police Community Consultative Groups to relate more effectively with CDRPs and to ensure that community engagement being undertaken through Community Panels linked into Safer Neighbourhood teams is also informing local partnership activity.

10. CDRPs must consult on the audit process and the drawing up of local priorities but only a few continue the engagement process throughout the life of the strategy. CDRPs should have a duty, complementary to that of police authorities, to set out their community engagement framework in their tri-ennial strategy. Police authorities can give guidance on this framework and subsequently ensure that a minimum standard is achieved.

11. Engaging the community, however, is only half of the solution to the problem; communities must know what action has been taken in response to their concerns and the impact it has made. Each CDRP must have the benefit of strong communication with its communities. We believe every CDRP ought to have their own communication strategy to promote their work. It could include Roadshows, open days, newsletters, websites, questionnaires and the Annual Report mentioned above, all of delivered under a single, identifiable CDRP logo.

12. There is a further opportunity in London to form true partnerships with the community by building on the concept of Safer Neighbourhoods and actively engaging them in crime reduction. For example, community involvement days, where as well as resources from various partners, members of the community are involved in specific projects. These are successful in not only making a difference locally but also engaging the community and keeping them engaged.

How do we get the right people round the partnership table in order to make a difference to delivery on the ground?

13. In general joint operational and tactical working is the best way to foster mainstreaming. Good practice should be promoted rather than introducing penalty regimes. There are several good practice ideas tested to this effect eg co-location of officers across agencies, joint strategies and action plans, pooled funding, multi-agency enforcement initiatives and joint tasking.

14. The emphasis must be on action centred CDRPs so the criteria for inclusion as a statutory partner should be based on defining the problems at hand and gaining understanding of the action partners and potential partners can take. On this basis the main omissions seem to be the GLA and transport authorities, but more needs to be done to promote the role and purpose of the fire service and PCTs within partnerships.

15. A complementary approach to Section 17 would be the introduction of joint performance indicators. These would be shared across CDRP partners and would encourage greater commitment in all agencies to tackling crime and disorder.

How can we improve the reach and impact of Section 17?

16. The compliance with Section 17 by responsible bodies should be examined and audited in the same way as for the Race Relations Acts. The results should directly influence the CPA rating under the new Community Safety element. For example, each body should include in all reports, an assessment of the impact it will have on community safety, in the same way as they assess the report for its impact on diversity or finance.

Two Tier Working

17. Not applicable to London.

Should we compel merger of smaller District CDRPs to remove barriers to delivery?

How can we minimise the impact of partners’ different boundaries?

18. We see no case for merger of CDRP’s in London. There is however a need for them to work more effectively together, to address “cross border issues” and to contribute to London wide programmes. Action towards this has started in the London Crime reduction Delivery Board and would be reinforced by a new duty on CDRPs to collaborate with each other and with other London partners.

How can we ensure that CDRPs work effectively with LSPs, YOTs, LCJBs and the wider criminal justice system?

19. The London Crime Reduction Delivery Board acts as the lead mechanism for ensuring that all crime reduction activity across the London is joined up. Reports are heard from the London Criminal Justice Board, London Youth Crime Management Board, London Drug Intervention Programme, Prolific and Priority Offenders and from cluster meetings of representatives from the CDRPs across London.

20. Currently the management of YOTs and CDRPs sit alongside each other. Each have their own plans but they do take account of each other. Each also produces annual reports/plans, however, one reports to the Youth Justice Board and the other to the Home Office; each has a slightly different planning cycle.

21. At a Borough level the Chief Officers of the various agencies need to make sure that the different functions of the bodies are coordinated and complement each other. There is also a need to make sure that each of the strategies/plans of these agencies not only takes into account their crime reduction responsibilities but also contributes to the overall crime reduction strategy. Government departments should ensure that any templates or advice to these agencies to generate strategies, plans or reports specifically includes crime reduction.

22. Some boroughs do not have a separate Chief Officer Group for the YOT but use the CDRP system. Whilst there is not one structure that is currently recommended to coordinate this activity, the MPA, MPS and GOL about to start a research project to review current structures across London and make recommendations for improvements.

Drugs and Alcohol - has integration worked?

23. In most cases it has. In some boroughs the work of the CDRP and DATs has been merged or integrated. This has meant closer working between these two broadly similar agendas, which has led to smarter working, and delivery on their objectives. The existing framework should be maintained but CDRPs should not be forced to put undue emphasis on drugs issues. CDRPs bring strengths around prevention and rehabilitation rather than enforcement, though it may be some time before the real benefits of this is felt. Though DATS are on board, PCTs and their treatment services are generally not as integrated.

24. Further partnerships can be encouraged to integrate by demonstrating what systems, structures and mechanisms work and encouraging CDRPs to adopt those that meet their needs. Again, in London, we see the MPA as being ideally placed for this work

Funding

25. The current system of grants to CDRPs and BCUs can work well, excepting issues of equity between boroughs. The main focus of change should be upon streamlining and reducing bureaucratic requirements of funding regimes. There are a number of examples in London of where boroughs have pooled different funding streams (NRF, BSC and BCU with local funds) to better coordinate and respond to crime and disorder issues. These boroughs will be ideally placed when local area agreements come in to place.

Data Sharing

26. The Department for Constitutional Affairs has published its legal guidance, “Public Sector Data Sharing: Guidance on the Law” in November 2003 together with other guidance on how the public sector should share information more effectively. Existing legislation and that guidance is sufficient for the purpose. The extent to which CDRP partners support and exploit the provisions should be an element of the inspection of CDRPs and of the individual partners such as for the CPA.

27. IQUANTA data should be extended and developed to provide multi agency data reports. This would be similar to that of the LASS project at GOL and would provide a data warehouse for a minimum standard of multi-agency data sets against which partnerships can be measured.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback